Author
Topic: lens recommendation soccer (Read 7356 times)

subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline.

cameras: 6d (For which I do not have any focus issues in younger kid sports) or t2ilenses:70-300 IS 4-5.6, 70-200 2.8 is Mk II

I assume that 6d plus 70-200 is better than 6d 70-300 because cropped I would still get a better picture. Therefore the main question would be is 6d + 70-200 better than t2i 70-300. I'm giving up a lot of reach for the IQ of the 6d 70-200.

canon rumors FORUM

Personally, I prefer my 7D and 70-300.The soccerfield is big. The 5D III and 70-200 is nice for close goal action. But fieldaction I try to get by long zoom and have also the OOF around the subject. And for me, the field action is more exiting to shoot

subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline.

cameras: 6d (For which I do not have any focus issues in younger kid sports) or t2ilenses:70-300 IS 4-5.6, 70-200 2.8 is Mk II

I assume that 6d plus 70-200 is better than 6d 70-300 because cropped I would still get a better picture. Therefore the main question would be is 6d + 70-200 better than t2i 70-300. I'm giving up a lot of reach for the IQ of the 6d 70-200.

Indoors the 6d 70-200 has been great for soccer and basketball.

thoughts

why not both? 6d+70-200 will give you awesome, high IQ shots when your subjects are close enough. Have the 75-300 on the t2i as a second body, IQ won't be as great but you'll have the reach for shots on the other side of the field!

subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline.

cameras: 6d (For which I do not have any focus issues in younger kid sports) or t2ilenses:70-300 IS 4-5.6, 70-200 2.8 is Mk II

I assume that 6d plus 70-200 is better than 6d 70-300 because cropped I would still get a better picture. Therefore the main question would be is 6d + 70-200 better than t2i 70-300. I'm giving up a lot of reach for the IQ of the 6d 70-200.

Indoors the 6d 70-200 has been great for soccer and basketball.

thoughts

I don't have any of the tele zooms and stick to primes for the most part. For local youth soccer I found that the 200 2.8L II works very well. I also bring along my 24-105, 135 and a 500 but find that with the 200 I get the best results in that setting. And it's much much cheaper than any of the big white zooms for the same kind of optical quality.

canon rumors FORUM

Zlatko

It sounds like you have both cameras and both lenses, so you are all set. Why not bring both? I have photographed my kids' soccer with a 70-200 on a 5D2, 5D3 and 7D, all with excellent results. However, when the action is far away, 200mm is sometimes not enough. That's when a 400mm (or 300mm on a crop camera) would be great.

Of course, when the action is very near you, 70mm may not be wide enough. So you will miss some shots no matter what you bring, but that is unavoidable (unless you weigh yourself down with several cameras).

I personally would use the 6D and the 70-200mm, but I would put a 2x extender on it. The 70-200 F2.8 IS II performs very well with a 2x extender on and focusing is still pretty fast. Effectively, you will have a 6D with a 140-400mm F5.6 lens. If you are worried about the focus speed and IQ loss with a 2x extender, there is a 1.4 extender you can use instead.

I suspect the center point of the 6D focuses better for soccer than the Rebel, although they did remove the helper points for the center that that 5D2 had which seemed to be extremely important for field soccer shooting with that particular body so I really don't know though.

70-200 is very short for field soccer, although it makes a nice lens on a backup body for the occasional close shots.

On 20MPish FF 300 2.8+1.4x TC was nice = 420mm.

Try both in both combos and see how things go.

300 f/4 non-IS can be found used for maybe $650 (this one is probably better to use without TC for sports although it is fine to use the TC for birds sitting around) although perhaps the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 1.4x TC these days would do almost as well???

I suspect the Tamron 70-300 VC would work even better than the 70-300 IS non-L, although I never tried the tamron for sports. The 70-300L focuses 50% faster than the tamron and has more precise AF.

I have shot large field sports with 70-200IIF2.8 + 2XIII on 5D3 and the results are OK you can see some here:http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/p929851709 - where the match is being played on a smaller field I was allowed on the sides. The 2X greatly slows down any ability to track despite the 70-200II +5D3 speed using servo mode. I imagine that soccer and cricket have similar sized fields although with cricket the action will be more or less at the centre of the field - you can see some examples of this here with the same equipment http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/2020for50. The Cricket was a large public game with very little ability to get too close. In the latter situation the 400 mm provided with FF is not enough for comfort - i suspect that the best is to try to get at least 600 mm with the option to use a teleconverter - which ever you (or your camera) can tolerate without reducing performance/speed/IQ too much.

I'd definitely go with 6D and 70-200mm. No doubt. It is in a different class than the 70-300mm (non-L). I would keep the AF point in the center and shoot away in AI-SERVO.

+1 I usually like to stay at about 25 yrd (a bit past the edge of the penalty box arc) away from coaches and shoot action near that goal. The attached shot with 5D3 and 70-200L illustrates field of view at 70 mm from such a spot. With 70-200 mm, I find it hard to get keepers when the action is near the far goal ... not enough reach, and there is usually somebody between the play and the lens.

When you have a white lens, it is less likely that parents from the other team chase you away from "their" side if you keep your distance. Depending on the game situation and sun, I sometimes wander over to the wrong side.

I tried them all today. The 2ti + 70-300 non-L had a lot more reach...effective up to 480. Some trouble this AM with cloud cover.. Iso set to 800 (don't like going higher with the 2ti) and 1/1000 with f5.6. The pictures were just soft for the most part. I have sideline access and I found that I did not use more than about effective 300mm.

The 70-200 mark II on the 6d is a lot sharper...even cropped for distance they were better. If I really needed effective 480 maybe it would make a difference when cropping but not at effective 300.

I also got to use a 100-400 L lens of friend of mine on the 6D which gave me sharpness but the focus was noticeable slower than either of the combinations above (especially the 6D+70-200). I can comfortable move focus from about 150-300 with one hand which was pretty good. I will say however, the focus delay was annoying. I think I'm spoiled.

So, I need to practice a little more with the 100-400 and compare it to the 70-200 to get a better feel for background blur, focus etc to see what works better for soccer.

Of course there are other options such as the 70-300 L, adding a 1.4 extender to the 70-200, the 300 f4L (maybe a used unsupported 300 non IS 2. and the 400 5.6. If I'm looking for at least 300mm and good fast focus on a 6D...any thoughts.

300 2.8 would be awesome, but definitely not cheap... the 300 f/4 is very sharp, plays reasonably well with a 1.4x extender if you wanted more reach, and has fast AF. If you wanted to add to your collection, I'd say the 300 f/4 (IS nice for other usage, but probably not necessary for fast-moving sports if you can find a used non-IS version) would be a great add!